No, Blake Lively did not drop her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. The case ended in a settlement announced on May 4, 2026, roughly two weeks before jury selection was scheduled to begin. By that point, a federal judge had already dismissed ten of her thirteen claims, and only three were still headed to trial.
The distinction matters. Dropping a suit means walking away. Lively settled a narrower version of her original case after losing most of it at the pleading stage, and she later secured a court ruling entitling her to recover attorneys’ fees from Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios.
What Happened Before the Settlement
Lively filed her federal complaint in the Southern District of New York on December 31, 2024, naming Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, CEO Jamey Heath, co-founder Steve Sarowitz, and several PR consultants. She alleged sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us and a coordinated retaliation campaign after she raised her concerns.1ABC News. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Legal Battle Timeline
Baldoni fired back in January 2025 with a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist. Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed that countersuit in June 2025, ruling that Lively’s original harassment allegations were protected under California’s law shielding people who report harassment from retaliatory defamation suits.2Los Angeles Times. Justin Baldoni Blake Lively Countersuit Ends Baldoni missed the deadline to amend, and the case formally closed on October 31, 2025.3People. Justin Baldoni Countersuit Against Blake Lively Officially Ended by Judge
Why Most of Lively’s Claims Were Dismissed
On April 2, 2026, Judge Liman issued a ruling that gutted the bulk of Lively’s complaint. He dismissed ten of her thirteen claims, including every sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy count.4NBC News. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Lawsuit Judge Dismisses Some Claims
The sexual harassment claims fell because the court concluded Lively was an independent contractor rather than an employee, which put her outside the reach of the federal civil rights statute she had invoked. A contract claim built on an “Actor’s Loanout Agreement” also failed because she had never signed the document.5U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, Opinion and Order
The Three Claims That Survived
Three narrower claims made it past the motion to dismiss and were on track for trial:
- Retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, against Wayfarer Studios and the production entity It Ends With Us Movie LLC, based on the alleged campaign to damage Lively’s reputation after she reported workplace misconduct.
- Aiding and abetting retaliation, against The Agency Group PR LLC, the public relations firm accused of helping run the campaign.
- Breach of contract, against the production entity, based on a signed Contract Rider Agreement containing an anti-retaliation clause.
The court held that California’s FEHA was broad enough to protect Lively regardless of her employment classification and that a jury, not the judge, would need to weigh the competing explanations for the alleged retaliation.5U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, Opinion and Order
One Claim Lively Did Withdraw Earlier
Separate from the April 2026 dismissals, Lively voluntarily withdrew her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress in May 2025. Her lawyers described the move as streamlining, since she intended to pursue emotional distress damages through her remaining harassment and retaliation claims.6ABC News. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Legal Drama Escalates Baldoni’s team argued she was avoiding discovery of her medical and psychiatric records.7Variety. Blake Lively Abandons Claims Against Justin Baldoni That withdrawal covered two counts, not the case as a whole.
The May 2026 Settlement
With trial set for May 18, 2026, the parties reached a settlement on May 4.8NPR. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settle Before Trial The financial terms were not disclosed, and later reporting indicated that Lively received no direct financial compensation as part of the settlement itself.9The New York Times. Blake Lively Legal Fees Ruling Justin Baldoni Settlement
A joint statement acknowledged that the production “presented challenges” and that “concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard,” expressing hope for “closure” and calling for “a respectful environment online.”8NPR. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settle Before Trial
What Lively did get was procedural. As part of the deal, Baldoni and every individual defendant waived their right to appeal the earlier dismissal of the $400 million countersuit. Lively’s attorneys said this waiver meant the defendants “now face personal liability for abusing the legal system to silence and intimidate Ms. Lively.”10Hartford Courant. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settlement Victor The settlement also preserved her right to pursue attorneys’ fees under a California statute protecting people who face retaliatory defamation suits after reporting harassment.11The Hollywood Reporter. Blake Lively Legal Fees Justin Baldoni Court Orders
The Attorneys’ Fees Ruling
On June 12, 2026, Judge Liman issued a 47-page order granting Lively’s request for attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code Section 47.1, which lets someone who successfully defends against a retaliatory defamation suit recover legal costs. The judge found Lively was the “prevailing defendant” because Baldoni’s countersuit had been dismissed and there was no evidence she had acted with malice.9The New York Times. Blake Lively Legal Fees Ruling Justin Baldoni Settlement He denied her request for additional compensatory and punitive damages.12Los Angeles Times. Blake Lively Awarded Legal Fees From Justin Baldoni but Not Damages
The dollar amount is still open. Lively’s lawyers must submit billing records and fee calculations for court approval, and one estimate placed the total in the “tens of millions.”13Deadline. Blake Lively Attorney Fees Justin Baldoni Defamation Suit That figure is the last unresolved piece of the case.